Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

I would say that one thing is the large majority of men of every race, country, society, culture and class do not commit sexual offenses.

Indeed. But if one were seeking - genuinely seeking - to eliminate sexual crimes you would want to begin by looking at what unifies virtually every single sexual crime committed in the history of humanity.

And if you don't do that, or don't at least acknowledge that you're aware of that, then all you're doing is fiddling with your chosen fetish.

Indeed. But if one were seeking - genuinely seeking - to eliminate sexual crimes you would want to begin by looking at what unifies virtually every single sexual crime committed in the history of humanity.

And if you don't do that, or don't at least acknowledge that you're aware of that, then all you're doing is fiddling with your chosen fetish.

Australian rape statistics show 28 cases per 100,000 of the population. Now even if we assume that all those victims were women and all the rapists were men and we assume that each crime was committed by a separate perpetrator, that would mean that of the 50,000 males, 49,972 were NOT rapists.

Feminist orthodoxy has held for decades that rape is about power and control, not gender or sexuality. In fact, if rape was a direct product of maleness, how would you explain the 99.944% of males who aren't rapists?

1

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Indeed. But if one were seeking - genuinely seeking - to eliminate sexual crimes you would want to begin by looking at what unifies virtually every single sexual crime committed in the history of humanity.

And if you don't do that, or don't at least acknowledge that you're aware of that, then all you're doing is fiddling with your chosen fetish.

Quite.

Often sexual attacks are considered trivial unless they are perpetrated a by someone from a group that the self-righteous person does not like. Being the wrong creed, colour or persuation is treated as worse than a sexual offence.

Clearly though, the "all men are rapists" approach is limited. I suspect there are many things that go into it and I suspect we are all (men and women) capable of terrible things. The question is why capable becomes reality.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Clearly though, the "all men are rapists" approach is limited. I suspect there are many things that go into it and I suspect we are all (men and women) capable of terrible things. The question is why capable becomes reality.

It would be if anybody had actually said "all men are rapists".

You've really answered your own question. What turns capability into reality is the power structures that exist within society. We live in a patriarchy, where from birth men are indoctrinated in some obvious but mostly very many subtle ways that we are superior to women and have rights over their bodies. For most men this system this will "only" induce the varying degrees of casual sexism, controlling behaviour and emotional manipulation required to maintain this particular layer of a complex system of exploitation (capitalism). For a small minority* however it will facilitate the sexual violence towards women which is almost exclusively carried out by men.

In theory women are capable of committing sexual violence to the same extent as men but they don't because our society is not constructed in a way that convinces a small number of women that they are justified in committing sexual violence and that more likely than not they will get away with it. To insist on discussing it as a hypothetical situation is a deflection from a real issue.

For the same reason people of colour, immigrants and poor/working class people are more likely to be victims of violence than white people, citizens and wealthy/middle class people. The latter are protected by power structures and the former are not.

*This is of course using the narrow definition of rape as penetration. If we were to expand it to include all forms of sexual harassment and assault I would argue that a significant minority of men would be guilty.

While I'm no supporter of him or what he says a large section of the UK media has always been opinion pieces. I would be reluctant to ban them wholesale although I do think the media needs to rethink how it approaches balance (i.e. - and on an unrelated topic- if you have an expert climate scientist on, don't balance him with, say a former chancellor) had go down a less scaremongering route.

“If someone says it’s raining and another says it’s dry, it’s not your job to quote them both. Your job is to look out of the ###### window and find out which is true.”

Link to post

Share on other sites

You've really answered your own question. What turns capability into reality is the power structures that exist within society. We live in a patriarchy, where from birth men are indoctrinated in some obvious but mostly very many subtle ways that we are superior to women and have rights over their bodies. For most men this system this will "only" induce the varying degrees of casual sexism, controlling behaviour and emotional manipulation required to maintain this particular layer of a complex system of exploitation (capitalism). For a small minority* however it will facilitate the sexual violence towards women which is almost exclusively carried out by men.

In theory women are capable of committing sexual violence to the same extent as men but they don't because our society is not constructed in a way that convinces a small number of women that they are justified in committing sexual violence and that more likely than not they will get away with it. To insist on discussing it as a hypothetical situation is a deflection from a real issue.

For the same reason people of colour, immigrants and poor/working class people are more likely to be victims of violence than white people, citizens and wealthy/middle class people. The latter are protected by power structures and the former are not.

*This is of course using the narrow definition of rape as penetration. If we were to expand it to include all forms of sexual harassment and assault I would argue that a significant minority of men would be guilty.

It was more I was alluding to it being many things.

Clearly, being male does not lead to being a rapist. If you believe that, then you are blaming your genitals for your behaviour. As I presume you are male and not a rapist, I will find it reasonable that the relationship is more subtle that either being poor or being male. I have been a poor male, I managed not to rape anyone. My experience is, I would hope fairly typical.

We nonetheless live in a society where the large majority of men manage to not rape anyone. I actually think the main thing that is valued is the appearence of masculinity above femininity, which is why (perversely) many feminist icons are much by out-maleing normal men.

There are many possible factors that contribute, but I would suggest the sexual drive seeing a person as a sexual object is a biggie. This is a more male trait. That rape is seen by many women as a power issue rather than a sexual issue reflects that I think many cannot see it possible that there might be no more too it than just wanting to stick his cock into a suitable object regardless. This is actually more callous.

I suspect a feeling of powerlessness is an issue though, fuelled by sexual fustration. Playing out their sexual role in the most powerful context they can contrive will appeal.

Once a man is above thirty-five and and has access to willing sexual gratification, we are looking at an entirely callous motivation.

Other factors that lend to it is that you are almost certain to get away with it (even in Denmark, that a rophynol leads to some memory loss is not seen as a reason for memory loss). I am also struck that when men share tales occasionally of being accused of going too far by their lover, some tales are sympathetic - but some are not.

Depressingly, I think social stigma and self-image probably restrain many.

I think these things are culturally influenced, I see even the difference in Denmark. The male as active and woman as passive is particurly strong in the UK it seems. But, frankly, this does all seem very theoretical, and you talk of hypotheticals, yet argue as if writing from a textbook..

Can I comment that being male does not make someone even likely to rape. It makes them far more likely to do so.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Clearly, being male does not lead to being a rapist. If you believe that, then you are blaming your genitals for your behaviour. As I presume you are male and not a rapist, I will find it reasonable that the relationship is more subtle that either being poor or being male. I have been a poor male, I managed not to rape anyone. My experience is, I would hope fairly typical.

We nonetheless live in a society where the large majority of men manage to not rape anyone. I actually think the main thing that is valued is the appearence of masculinity above femininity, which is why (perversely) many feminist icons are much by out-maleing normal men.

There are many possible factors that contribute, but I would suggest the sexual drive seeing a person as a sexual object is a biggie. This is a more male trait. That rape is seen by many women as a power issue rather than a sexual issue reflects that I think many cannot see it possible that there might be no more too it than just wanting to stick his cock into a suitable object regardless. This is actually more callous.

I suspect a feeling of powerlessness is an issue though, fuelled by sexual fustration. Playing out their sexual role in the most powerful context they can contrive will appeal.

Once a man is above thirty-five and and has access to willing sexual gratification, we are looking at an entirely callous motivation.

Other factors that lend to it is that you are almost certain to get away with it (even in Denmark, that a rophynol leads to some memory loss is not seen as a reason for memory loss). I am also struck that when men share tales occasionally of being accused of going too far by their lover, some tales are sympathetic - but some are not.

Depressingly, I think social stigma and self-image probably restrain many.

I think these things are culturally influenced, I see even the difference in Denmark. The male as active and woman as passive is particurly strong in the UK it seems. But, frankly, this does all seem very theoretical, and you talk of hypotheticals, yet argue as if writing from a textbook..

Can I comment that being male does not make someone even likely to rape. It makes them far more likely to do so.

Denmark and Sweden are interesting as they do have a disproportional number of rapes committed by non Scandinavian nationals. Even newspapers such as the Independent have articles regarding this.

Before anyone cries racism two of the countries with a high proportion were European with others from the middle East or Africa. Religions weren't specified either so no slant intended there. In fact one of the African countries I think had a high Christian population.

One of the reasons given for this in the Independent article I read was different attitudes towards women in other countries.

I know others will cite poverty which is relevant, but the statistics aren't consistent with every nationality.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

You've really answered your own question. What turns capability into reality is the power structures that exist within society. We live in a patriarchy, where from birth men are indoctrinated in some obvious but mostly very many subtle ways that we are superior to women and have rights over their bodies. For most men this system this will "only" induce the varying degrees of casual sexism, controlling behaviour and emotional manipulation required to maintain this particular layer of a complex system of exploitation (capitalism). For a small minority* however it will facilitate the sexual violence towards women which is almost exclusively carried out by men.

In theory women are capable of committing sexual violence to the same extent as men but they don't because our society is not constructed in a way that convinces a small number of women that they are justified in committing sexual violence and that more likely than not they will get away with it. To insist on discussing it as a hypothetical situation is a deflection from a real issue.

For the same reason people of colour, immigrants and poor/working class people are more likely to be victims of violence than white people, citizens and wealthy/middle class people. The latter are protected by power structures and the former are not.

*This is of course using the narrow definition of rape as penetration. If we were to expand it to include all forms of sexual harassment and assault I would argue that a significant minority of men would be guilty.

On the bit I highlighted in bold. One of the compulsory modules in my law degree was Contemporary Legal Thought where a former Greenham Common protester lecturer spent two hours a week for six months telling us that heterosexual sex should be considered rape unless proven otherwise. She took the already disturbing “literature” of Andrea Dworkin and Catharine MacKinnon and perverted it further to suit her agenda. Dworkin was one of those alleged to have said all men are rapists but it was never proven beyond anecdote

She and I butted heads every tutorial session as she knew I was an ex-squaddie. I even quoted Maggie Thatcher to her to wind her up. I have no idea how I passed but she gave me a very good mark for actually having robust beliefs and being willing to defend them!

3

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

On the bit I highlighted in bold. One of the compulsory modules in my law degree was Contemporary Legal Thought where a former Greenham Common protester lecturer spent two hours a week for six months telling us that heterosexual sex should be considered rape unless proven otherwise. She took the already disturbing “literature” of Andrea Dworkin and Catharine MacKinnon and perverted it further to suit her agenda. Dworkin was one of those alleged to have said all men are rapists but it was never proven beyond anecdote

She and I butted heads every tutorial session as she knew I was an ex-squaddie. I even quoted Maggie Thatcher to her to wind her up. I have no idea how I passed but she gave me a very good mark for actually having robust beliefs and being willing to defend them!

I don't know anything about Catharine McKinnon but I do find it somewhat baffling that the clearly mentally unstable ramblings of Dworkin are given anything like credence by so many people. That said, I think that number is diminishing - rather like Freud, you can look at the positives from the ripples created whilst acknowledging that most of the source is barking.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

She and I butted heads every tutorial session as she knew I was an ex-squaddie. I even quoted Maggie Thatcher to her to wind her up. I have no idea how I passed but she gave me a very good mark for actually having robust beliefs and being willing to defend them!

Providing an environment in which people learn how to defend robust beliefs, in part from being robustly challenged about them, is one of the reasons why universities used to be excellent places for the development of the mind. These days though it seems that if you hold certain robust beliefs, students and staff alike will cry offence and no-platform you. A good lecturer will always recognise a good defence of position regardless of whether they agree with that position.